Search results

The history of economics has often been described as the “history of economic thought.” In this essay, I explore an alternative perspective that builds on the French tradition of historical epistemology and treats economics as a social practice. I argue that a practice-based view provides a more philosophically robust conception of historiography and a richer field of investigation for historians of economics.

The issue of duplicate publications has received a lot of attention in the medical literature, but much less in the information science community. This paper aims to analyze the prevalence and scientific impact of duplicate publications across all fields of research between 1980 and 2007.

The approach is a bibliometric analysis of duplicate papers based on their metadata. Duplicate papers are defined as papers published in two different journals having: the exact same title; the same first author; and the same number of cited references.

In all fields combined, the prevalence of duplicates is one out of 2,000 papers, but is higher in the natural and medical sciences than in the social sciences and humanities. A very high proportion (>85 percent) of these papers are published the same year or one year apart, which suggest that most duplicate papers were submitted simultaneously. Furthermore, duplicate papers are generally published in journals with impact factors below the average of their field and obtain lower citations.

The paper provides clear evidence that the prevalence of duplicate papers is low and, more importantly, that the scientific impact of such papers is below average.

The purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications.

In the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability.

A tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper.

Limitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10.

The paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the classic characteristics of highly cited articles (HCAs) of top-ranked library and information science (LIS) journals and get acquainted with the high-quality works in specific areas of LIS for distinguishing what gets cited and who the prolific authors are.

The HCAs published across the top four LIS journals were downloaded, coded and a database was developed with basic metadata elements for analysis using bibliometric indicators. Lotka’s Inverse Square Law of Scientific Productivity was applied to assess the author’s productivity of HCA. The content analysis method was also used to find out the emerging areas of research that have sought high citations.

Inferences were drawn for the proposed five number of research questions pertaining to individual productivity, collaboration patterns country and institutional productivity, impactful areas of research. The Netherland found to be the potential player among all the affiliating countries of authors and Loet Leydesdorff tops the list among the prolific authors. It is observed that Lotka’s Classical Law also fits the HCA data set in LIS. “Research impact measurement and research collaboration,” “Social networking” and “Research metrics and citation-based studies” are found to be the emerging areas of LIS research.

Researchers may find a way what gets cited in specific areas of LIS literature and why along with who are the prolific authors.

This study is important from the perspective of the growing research field of the LIS discipline to identify the papers that have influenced others papers as per citation count, spot the active and more impactful topics in LIS research.

Citation is an important measure of quality, and it plays a vital role in evaluating scientific research. However, citation advantage varies from discipline to discipline, subject to subject and topic to topic. This study aims to compare the citation advantage of open access and toll access articles from four subfields of computer science.

This research studies the articles published by two prestigious publishers: Springer and Elsevier in the author-pays charges model from 2011 to 2015. For experimentation, four sub-domains of computer science are selected including (a) artificial intelligence, (b) human–computer interaction, (c) computer vision and graphics, and (d) software engineering. The open-access and toll-based citation advantage is studied and analyzed at the micro level within the computer science domain by performing independent sample t-tests.

The results of the study highlight that open access articles have a higher citation advantage as compared to toll access articles across years and sub-domains. Further, an increase in open access articles has been observed from 2011 to 2015. The findings of the study show that the citation advantage of open access articles varies among different sub-domains of a subject. The study contributed to the body of knowledge by validating the positive movement toward open access articles in the field of computer science and its sub-domains. Further, this work added the success of the author-pays charges model in terms of citation advantage to the literature of open access.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the citation advantage of the author-pays charges model at a subject level (computer science) along with four sub-domains of computer science.